In IPR2025-01188, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminated the proceeding after the parties settled following institution. The decision applies the familiar framework of 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, which govern settlement and termination of inter partes review, but it is still a useful reminder of how the Board handles cases once trial is already underway.

The core ruling is straightforward: when the parties jointly request termination after institution and the Board has not yet decided the merits, the PTAB generally will terminate the review as to those parties. Section 317 provides that an instituted IPR “shall be terminated” with respect to any petitioner upon joint request, unless the Office has already decided the merits before the termination request is filed. The corresponding rule, 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, also requires the parties to file their settlement agreement, which may be kept separate as business confidential information in appropriate circumstances.

Here, the Board’s termination reflects that statutory structure. Because the dispute was resolved by settlement after institution, and because the proceeding had not yet reached a final written decision on the merits, the Board ended the case rather than continuing on to adjudicate patentability. That is consistent with long-standing PTAB practice: although the Board retains discretion in some post-institution settings, settlement before a merits decision strongly favors termination, especially where there is no remaining controversy requiring the agency to proceed.

For practitioners, the opinion matters less for breaking new doctrinal ground than for reinforcing the practical value of post-institution settlement. Parties sometimes assume that once an IPR is instituted, the train cannot be stopped. This decision is another example that settlement remains a viable exit even after trial begins, so long as the procedural requirements are satisfied and the Board has not already resolved the merits. Counsel should pay close attention to timing, file the joint motion promptly, and ensure the settlement agreement is submitted in compliance with the PTAB’s confidentiality rules.

The decision does not appear to create new precedent or alter existing law. Instead, it confirms the Board’s continued adherence to the statutory command of § 317. For patent litigators managing parallel district court and PTAB disputes, that predictability is important: a global settlement can still eliminate the administrative challenge, reducing cost and litigation risk on both sides.

View full case on Docket Alarm